The Flaw of Monotheism (2 Viewers)

[Scorch]

Just slightly off topic, I just discovered the Secular Party of Australia. From their website, they look like a pretty well put together party. Here is their website - Secular Party of Australia

How come we don't hear a lot about this party?

I know! I had absolutely no idea they existed and am definitely considering becoming more involved.

 

[Scorch]

may I ask what is the point of this thread? so far ... nothing is new

all of these aspects have already been discussed before!

Well quite frankly almost everything has been discussed before. That makes it neither pointless nor redundant.

 

[Teclis]

so you're a homo?

I see what you did there, taking me out of context... you're really funny...

And what makes you think the Bible is the word of God? Cos someone told you, right?

Actually... well my own research.

Exactly. As far as I'm aware of, the Bible is not the word of God.

It has been altered by people a lot of times too.

Wrong... learn something about historical reliability, look at the bible in that context and that light... then rethink your statement.

Oh and if someone dares to say it doesn't count because it's in the Old Testament I will happily recount what the writers of the New Testament invented and stole to support their cause, such as the Last Supper, virgin birth, Judas' betrayal, the census, Herod's killing of young children, etc.

I would LOVE to see this evidence.

Exactly. Quite frankly I think that such Bronze-Age nonsense survives into the present day is not because its claims have any veracity, which they clearly don't, but because of an ignorance of the facts on the part of those that believe.

I think that very few people believe in religion in spite of the facts, but billions believe in it in ignorance of the facts.

So what you're saying is that Atheists are the only intelligent, enlightened people on the planet, right?

 

[Bereie]

Not really it's just that they're too brainwashed to listen to reason and hear opposing viewpoints. The parents fault mainly.

 

[Teclis]

Not really it's just that they're too brainwashed to listen to reason and hear opposing viewpoints. The parents fault mainly.

Oh deary me, maybe go and spend some time with some people who found religion NOT because of their parents...

 

[Scorch]

Wrong... learn something about historical reliability, look at the bible in that context and that light... then rethink your statement.

Not wrong at all.

I would LOVE to see this evidence.

• Virgin Birth: Matthew and Luke include genealogies of David's line to show that Jesus is related to David, as to account for the Old Testament prophecy that the messiah will be of the line of David. Think about it this way, however. If Joseph was, in no way at all, Jesus' father, then these genealogies are completely irrelevant.
  
  This suggests that the myth of virgin birth was added into the Christian dogma at the very least after these two gospels were added, though the very manipulation of Matthew and Luke that added the idea of virgin birth broke the link between David and Jesus, and these irrelevant genealogies are just a trace of the way the Gospels were manipulated to suit the theological developments of the early Christian church.
  
  
• The Census: Jesus needed to fit the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem, yet it is a well-recognized fact that Jesus of Nazareth is well known as being ... of Nazareth. The authors of the Gospel, therefore, make up a story about Mary and Joseph being forced to pack up and move half-way across the province to Bethlehem for a census. Not only can we say with historical certainty that this census never happened, ever, in a small-scale agricultural subsistence economy before the age of large-scale computerized records, it would be absolutely absurd for the Romans to imposed this upon anyone. It is absurd because they absolutely didn't. This story is made up.
  
  
• Herod's slaughter: Matthew asserts that in order to find and kill the new-born messiah, Herod had all the male children under the age of 2 in and around Bethlehem put to death.
  
  This is a fabrication. Herod the Great was guilty of monstrous crimes, including the murder of some of his own family members, however there are several historians, including the Jewish historian Josephus, who delight in disparaging Herod and listing his crimes, and not one mentions this.
  
  It is a made up story.
  
  
• Judas' betrayal: The Gospels are completely contradictory on almost every element of Judas' betrayal. The fact is that this is a complete and utter invention. It was possible for the religious authorities to arrest Jesus a large amount of times without the populace finding out; keeping tabs on his whereabouts in such circumstances would have been easy.
  
  The religious authorities did not need a betrayal at all; yet the gospel writers did, in order to fulfill a couple more prophecies that they could squeeze in. It is, as expected with a made up event, full of contradictions and riddled with holes.
  
  
• The Last Supper: Again, the Gospels contradict eachother with regularity here, and it is likely that such an idea of the Last Supper was, in fact, the work of Paul, who claims he was given instructions about the Last Supper of Jesus directly from the Lord. However if the Christian Church had been celebrating the idea of the Last Supper for thirty to forty years before this, his claim would be entirely false.
  
  The reality is that Paul, who, although he never met Jesus at any point in his life, was extremely influential in winning out over the theology of the original apostles, stresses that his account of things was not taught to him by any man, citing revelations, visions, dreams, etc. Paul was from Tarsus, which was quite possibly the largest center for a rival of Christianity, the Mithraic cult, which predated Christianity. The cult told of Mithras, who was the Son of God, a sacrificial saviour who granted believers eternal life. Sound familiar? The idea of communal meals and ritual suppers was deeply embedded in the discourse in which Paul would have been submerged during the development of his theology.
  
  Again, it is quite likely an element of Christianity that was quite simply adopted from another rival cult.

I could go on, however I have provided evidence for the claims that you wished to see evidence for. What this shows is that the Gospel writers invented and manipulated history to suit their purposes, that they contradict eachother and that they were heavily edited to accommodate the shifting dogma of the Early Church, and one can even trace Paul's heavy influence on such dogma despite not ever having met Jesus and not writing any of the Gospels.

I am more than happy to elaborate on any of these points, for those that are interested, but please, since you did say you would "LOVE" to see the evidence, attempt to read this with an open mind and see the points I have raised. Not that I expect you will, but I may plead.

So yes. There is the evidence in its plainest form. Now put your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as I expect you will.

So what you're saying is that Atheists are the only intelligent, enlightened people on the planet, right?

No, but anyone that can believe such nonsense with full knowledge of the evidence is clearly deluded or stupid. Now since clearly the majority of the human race is neither deluded or stupid, it is most likely that they just are unaware of the evidence.

The amount of people that tell me that evolution is "just a theory" is absurd. It is as irrefutable a scientific fact as gravity is. The amount of people that are unaware of the things I just described to you. The amount of people that are unaware of the brutal and violent contents of their own book. The amount of people that are unaware of these facts is staggering, and it is this ignorance that is responsible for the survival of such nonsense in our modern society.

Oh deary me, maybe go and spend some time with some people who found religion NOT because of their parents...

Oh deary me ... maybe be familiar with the contents of your own Holy Book before attempting to defend it.

 

[Teclis]

Not wrong at all.

• Virgin Birth: Matthew and Luke include genealogies of David's line to show that Jesus is related to David, as to account for the Old Testament prophecy that the messiah will be of the line of David. Think about it this way, however. If Joseph was, in no way at all, Jesus' father, then these genealogies are completely irrelevant.
  
  This suggests that the myth of virgin birth was added into the Christian dogma at the very least after these two gospels were added, though the very manipulation of Matthew and Luke that added the idea of virgin birth broke the link between David and Jesus, and these irrelevant genealogies are just a trace of the way the Gospels were manipulated to suit the theological developments of the early Christian church.

Well I'll start with this one because this is quite easy to deal with at this time. Joseph WAS Jesus' father. Not by conception, but he did raise him as his own. Everyone KNEW Jesus as Joseph's son. He did not run around the countryside yelling "Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, he's actually the son of God..." he claimed him as his own, raised him as his own, loved him as his own.

• The Census: Jesus needed to fit the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem, yet it is a well-recognized fact that Jesus of Nazareth is well known as being ... of Nazareth. The authors of the Gospel, therefore, make up a story about Mary and Joseph being forced to pack up and move half-way across the province to Bethlehem for a census. Not only can we say with historical certainty that this census never happened, ever, in a small-scale agricultural subsistence economy before the age of large-scale computerized records, it would be absolutely absurd for the Romans to imposed this upon anyone. It is absurd because they absolutely didn't. This story is made up.

This story MAY be made up. You cannot be sure. There is no evidence outside the bible that it did happen (Yes, I do know a little about the Ancient History of this time, suprisingly seeing as it's the most important decision I have made in my life). And it may seem implausible... buuuuuuut the Egyptians Built the Pyramids (or maybe aliens did and we're actually unknowingly fighting an intergalactic war against them right now), the Roman's built the Colloseum and thousands of kilometres of roads and unless it was an inordinately ridiculous fluke, someone built Stonehenge. Improbable, not impossible.

I am no serious student of History (I'm doing a Music Education degree with very little history included), so If there is evidence that makes you say with historical CERTAINTY I think posting of said sources would be interesting to see. Not because I want to catch out, because I'm generally interested.

• Herod's slaughter: Matthew asserts that in order to find and kill the new-born messiah, Herod had all the male children under the age of 2 in and around Bethlehem put to death.
  
  This is a fabrication. Herod the Great was guilty of monstrous crimes, including the murder of some of his own family members, however there are several historians, including the Jewish historian Josephus, who delight in disparaging Herod and listing his crimes, and not one mentions this.
  
  It is a made up story.

• This is a good point, but one I have heard before. Once again, our Historical records of this era are scarce, and just because the few people who believed that writing down history as opposed to aurally transferring it was the way to go, doesn't mean they missed facts or chose to leave out what they thought were relevant details. But that's just the way I've personally viewed all my history studies.

• Judas' betrayal: The Gospels are completely contradictory on almost every element of Judas' betrayal. The fact is that this is a complete and utter invention. It was possible for the religious authorities to arrest Jesus a large amount of times without the populace finding out; keeping tabs on his whereabouts in such circumstances would have been easy.
  
  The religious authorities did not need a betrayal at all; yet the gospel writers did, in order to fulfill a couple more prophecies that they could squeeze in. It is, as expected with a made up event, full of contradictions and riddled with holes.

Orrr... like any eyewitness account, full of different angles and viewings of the story from people with different biases. It wasn't so much that the religious authorities needed to arrest Jesus in private. They disliked Jesus because he continually rebuked them and showed them to be the hypocritical men they were. They wanted to arrest him for heresy, which is why they constantly tried to make him falter to get him to speak heresy so they COULD arrest him. For one of many examples, the story in which they ask Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar and Jesus simply states to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. They tried to trick him and failed. They wanted to publicly humiliate him. The only way they were able to get him to speak what they believed was heresy was to get him to say the one thing he could not deny, that he was the son of God.

The Classic "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" conundrum.

We understand very little about the nature of Judas' betrayal. Namely because there were no witnesses to what happened. Judas could have told them that Jesus would refuse to deny that he was the son of God, we do not know. Apart from that claim, the pharasies actually did not have any charge that I can think of to arrest Jesus with.

• The Last Supper: Again, the Gospels contradict eachother with regularity here, and it is likely that such an idea of the Last Supper was, in fact, the work of Paul, who claims he was given instructions about the Last Supper of Jesus directly from the Lord. However if the Christian Church had been celebrating the idea of the Last Supper for thirty to forty years before this, his claim would be entirely false.
  
  The reality is that Paul, who, although he never met Jesus at any point in his life, was extremely influential in winning out over the theology of the original apostles, stresses that his account of things was not taught to him by any man, citing revelations, visions, dreams, etc. Paul was from Tarsus, which was quite possibly the largest center for a rival of Christianity, the Mithraic cult, which predated Christianity. The cult told of Mithras, who was the Son of God, a sacrificial saviour who granted believers eternal life. Sound familiar? The idea of communal meals and ritual suppers was deeply embedded in the discourse in which Paul would have been submerged during the development of his theology.
  
  Again, it is quite likely an element of Christianity that was quite simply adopted from another rival cult.

One flaw in this would be the claim that Paul had anything to do with the Mithraic cult. Paul was a Pharisee and one of the key persecutors of early Christians. I wouldn't be suprised if he knew nothing about the cult's teaching other than Heresy, as you continue to claim that members of Abrahamic religions know nothing about other religion's or science. Just a thought...

Your point about the last Supper is also another conclusion based on supposition... Contradiction is not a bad thing in eyewitness accounts.

I could go on, however I have provided evidence for the claims that you wished to see evidence for. What this shows is that the Gospel writers invented and manipulated history to suit their purposes, that they contradict each other and that they were heavily edited to accommodate the shifting dogma of the Early Church, and one can even trace Paul's heavy influence on such dogma despite not ever having met Jesus and not writing any of the Gospels.

No what this shows is that you've read a couple of books on the subject. Claims without evidence so far. No sources, no pointing out of which specific contradictions you are pointing to.

I am more than happy to elaborate on any of these points, for those that are interested, but please, since you did say you would "LOVE" to see the evidence, attempt to read this with an open mind and see the points I have raised. Not that I expect you will, but I may plead.

So yes. There is the evidence in its plainest form. Now put your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as I expect you will.

I thought you might have had something new to bring to the table, but I have heard these arguments more than a few times, but previously the arguers have at least tried to provide me with sources and specific verses in context that they believe are cancelling contradictory statements.

I do not take people seriously who make big broad sweeping statements who either haven't done their research, who quote other people's logic and rhetoric or who just immediately believe that I do not have an open mind because I believe something different to them.

The amount of people that tell me that evolution is "just a theory" is absurd. It is as irrefutable a scientific fact as gravity is.

Don't worry, this annoys me too...

The amount of people that are unaware of the things I just described to you. The amount of people that are unaware of the brutal and violent contents of their own book. The amount of people that are unaware of these facts is staggering, and it is this ignorance that is responsible for the survival of such nonsense in our modern society.

Most people OUTSIDE the faith don't know these things either... but I agree on this too, it is sad that many Christians don't understand or know their own book. Just as it is sad that many militant Atheists claim to know the book without understanding context or having read the book itself in its actual context.

Oh deary me ... maybe be familiar with the contents of your own Holy Book before attempting to defend it.

That makes no sense... I was making a point that he was making a mass generalisation about Christians all being brainwashed from childhood when it is just not true. That's about as childish a statement as I've seen.

 

[Scorch]

Well I'll start with this one because this is quite easy to deal with at this time. Joseph WAS Jesus' father. Not by conception, but he did raise him as his own. Everyone KNEW Jesus as Joseph's son. He did not run around the countryside yelling "Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, he's actually the son of God..." he claimed him as his own, raised him as his own, loved him as his own.

I expected this argument. The Ancient Greek word used to describe this relationship between Jesus and David via Joseph is literally "sperma" or "seed". It clearly refers to a very physical, biological connection, and not one by law. So even if these genealogies, once again, were included, they are rendered entirely irrelevant by the later addition of the concept of virgin birth.

This story MAY be made up. You cannot be sure. There is no evidence outside the bible that it did happen (Yes, I do know a little about the Ancient History of this time, suprisingly seeing as it's the most important decision I have made in my life). And it may seem implausible... buuuuuuut the Egyptians Built the Pyramids (or maybe aliens did and we're actually unknowingly fighting an intergalactic war against them right now), the Roman's built the Colloseum and thousands of kilometres of roads and unless it was an inordinately ridiculous fluke, someone built Stonehenge. Improbable, not impossible.

No, it is made up and we can be sure. The things you listed, with the possible exception of Stonehenge, can be very reasonably explained, and we're quite aware of what happened.

Roman censuses were for taxation purposes. They were completely concerned with where people lived and worked, and it is preposterous to say that they'd make agricultural farmers or tradesmen abandon their livelihoods and ask them to migrate thousands of kilometers across the province for a census. This is completely made up.

Also, the Bible states that Herod was in charge when Jesus was born. This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

This is a good point, but one I have heard before. Once again, our Historical records of this era are scarce, and just because the few people who believed that writing down history as opposed to aurally transferring it was the way to go, doesn't mean they missed facts or chose to leave out what they thought were relevant details. But that's just the way I've personally viewed all my history studies.

Our historical records for this era are in no way scarce. They give us a very well-rounded viewpoints

Orrr... like any eyewitness account, full of different angles and viewings of the story from people with different biases. It wasn't so much that the religious authorities needed to arrest Jesus in private. They disliked Jesus because he continually rebuked them and showed them to be the hypocritical men they were. They wanted to arrest him for heresy, which is why they constantly tried to make him falter to get him to speak heresy so they COULD arrest him. For one of many examples, the story in which they ask Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar and Jesus simply states to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. They tried to trick him and failed. They wanted to publicly humiliate him. The only way they were able to get him to speak what they believed was heresy was to get him to say the one thing he could not deny, that he was the son of God.

The Classic "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" conundrum.

We understand very little about the nature of Judas' betrayal. Namely because there were no witnesses to what happened. Judas could have told them that Jesus would refuse to deny that he was the son of God, we do not know. Apart from that claim, the pharasies actually did not have any charge that I can think of to arrest Jesus with.

The religious authorities would not have needed Jesus to be betrayed. End of story. The Gospel writers needed Judas to be betrayed in order to fulfill yet another Old Testament prophecy of Zechariah. This is evident because according to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two problems we can say for sure here. [a] pieces of silver had gone out of circulation about 300 years before the time of Jesus and currency was minted and not weighed out. However these are the terms as we see them in the original prophecy. This all suggests, when basic source analysis comes into play, that this story is a fallacy.

One flaw in this would be the claim that Paul had anything to do with the Mithraic cult. Paul was a Pharisee and one of the key persecutors of early Christians. I wouldn't be suprised if he knew nothing about the cult's teaching other than Heresy, as you continue to claim that members of Abrahamic religions know nothing about other religion's or science. Just a thought...

Well you might be pleasantly surprised. From his writings, Paul is rather an intellectual and very educated man, with better knowledge of Hebrew, in fact, than the other gospel writers, who mistranslate prophecies with regularity, and with the Mithraic cult's popularity in such times, it is extremely likely that he was aware of it.

Your point about the last Supper is also another conclusion based on supposition... Contradiction is not a bad thing in eyewitness accounts.

Well yes and no. We expect it to a certain amount in historical records, but the Gospels would not pass any basic test to establish themselves as reliable historical records at all, based on the contradictions and clear fabrications.

No what this shows is that you've read a couple of books on the subject. Claims without evidence so far. No sources, no pointing out of which specific contradictions you are pointing to.

I'm not entirely sure what 'sources' you're talking about, because most of these contradictions are to do with the inherent logic of the New Testament. If you'd like me to source such arguments with passages, I figured that was unnecessary in this case but I'd do so if you insist.

In terms of historical sources, our main sources for the time are Tacitus and Josephus. Tacitus was a Roman historian whereas Josephus was a Jewish one who wrote in Greek. We also have writings of Pliny the Younger and Suetonius. It is on the basis of this extensive understanding of the history of the day that I can make the assertions related to events that operate externally to the internal logic of the New Testament; that is, Herod's slaughter, the census, the Mithraic cults (about whom Plutarch wrote in his "Life of Pompey" which predates Christianity by some 60 years).

That makes no sense... I was making a point that he was making a mass generalisation about Christians all being brainwashed from childhood when it is just not true. That's about as childish a statement as I've seen.

I was not saying at all that you were brainwashed, if you read my previous responses. I was saying that, as I said, I don't believe you are in full possession of an understanding of the facts and that, if you were, you would not believe such nonsense.

 

[Sadiah]

Well let me put it this way: are you aware of the scientific facts regarding evolution, the creation of the world, cosmology and biology that, on so many accounts, prove both the Bible and Quran wrong?

You didn't answer my question.

It was a straight question and required a straight answer.

Lol, you changed the subject and started asking me a question in return. Good tactic, by the way. =)

Buttt, answer my question now.

P.S. Evolution is bullshyt. Don't even mention it to me, please. =)

 

[Sadiah]

oh deary me, maybe go and spend some time with some people who found religion not because of their parents...

+1

 

[Titburger]

P.S. Evolution is bullshyt. Don't even mention it to me, please. =)

"I'm going to willfully ignore any scientific facts presented to me blah blah blah"

 

[Scorch]

You didn't answer my question.

It was a straight question and required a straight answer.

Lol, you changed the subject and started asking me a question in return. Good tactic, by the way. =)

Buttt, answer my question now.

P.S. Evolution is bullshyt. Don't even mention it to me, please. =)

I already provided evidence. Not only that but evolution is scientific fact; you can ignore it if you won't but don't try and say that you know better because you won't get away with it.

 

[mirakon]

really this thread is about flaws in religion arather than flaws in believing in God.

Perhaps, change name of thread into 'The Flaws of Religion'?

 

[Durga]

really this thread is about flaws in religion arather than flaws in believing in God.

Perhaps, change name of thread into 'The Flaws of Religion'?

+1. More specifically Abrahamic religions.

 

[scaredytiger]

Monotheism is a facet of Religion. Since the discussion is not encompassing Celtic, Nordic, Greek or other polytheistic religions, the title is correct.

 

[Lentern]

[/LIST]Well I'll start with this one because this is quite easy to deal with at this time. Joseph WAS Jesus' father. Not by conception, but he did raise him as his own. Everyone KNEW Jesus as Joseph's son. He did not run around the countryside yelling "Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, he's actually the son of God..." he claimed him as his own, raised him as his own, loved him as his own.

[/LIST]This story MAY be made up. You cannot be sure. There is no evidence outside the bible that it did happen (Yes, I do know a little about the Ancient History of this time, suprisingly seeing as it's the most important decision I have made in my life). And it may seem implausible... buuuuuuut the Egyptians Built the Pyramids (or maybe aliens did and we're actually unknowingly fighting an intergalactic war against them right now), the Roman's built the Colloseum and thousands of kilometres of roads and unless it was an inordinately ridiculous fluke, someone built Stonehenge. Improbable, not impossible.

I am no serious student of History (I'm doing a Music Education degree with very little history included), so If there is evidence that makes you say with historical CERTAINTY I think posting of said sources would be interesting to see. Not because I want to catch out, because I'm generally interested.

This is a good point, but one I have heard before. Once again, our Historical records of this era are scarce, and just because the few people who believed that writing down history as opposed to aurally transferring it was the way to go, doesn't mean they missed facts or chose to leave out what they thought were relevant details. But that's just the way I've personally viewed all my history studies.
[/LIST]

[/LIST]Orrr... like any eyewitness account, full of different angles and viewings of the story from people with different biases. It wasn't so much that the religious authorities needed to arrest Jesus in private. They disliked Jesus because he continually rebuked them and showed them to be the hypocritical men they were. They wanted to arrest him for heresy, which is why they constantly tried to make him falter to get him to speak heresy so they COULD arrest him. For one of many examples, the story in which they ask Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar and Jesus simply states to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. They tried to trick him and failed. They wanted to publicly humiliate him. The only way they were able to get him to speak what they believed was heresy was to get him to say the one thing he could not deny, that he was the son of God.

The Classic "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" conundrum.

We understand very little about the nature of Judas' betrayal. Namely because there were no witnesses to what happened. Judas could have told them that Jesus would refuse to deny that he was the son of God, we do not know. Apart from that claim, the pharasies actually did not have any charge that I can think of to arrest Jesus with.



[/LIST]
One flaw in this would be the claim that Paul had anything to do with the Mithraic cult. Paul was a Pharisee and one of the key persecutors of early Christians. I wouldn't be suprised if he knew nothing about the cult's teaching other than Heresy, as you continue to claim that members of Abrahamic religions know nothing about other religion's or science. Just a thought...

Your point about the last Supper is also another conclusion based on supposition... Contradiction is not a bad thing in eyewitness accounts.




No what this shows is that you've read a couple of books on the subject. Claims without evidence so far. No sources, no pointing out of which specific contradictions you are pointing to.



I thought you might have had something new to bring to the table, but I have heard these arguments more than a few times, but previously the arguers have at least tried to provide me with sources and specific verses in context that they believe are cancelling contradictory statements.

I do not take people seriously who make big broad sweeping statements who either haven't done their research, who quote other people's logic and rhetoric or who just immediately believe that I do not have an open mind because I believe something different to them.



Don't worry, this annoys me too...



Most people OUTSIDE the faith don't know these things either... but I agree on this too, it is sad that many Christians don't understand or know their own book. Just as it is sad that many militant Atheists claim to know the book without understanding context or having read the book itself in its actual context.




That makes no sense... I was making a point that he was making a mass generalisation about Christians all being brainwashed from childhood when it is just not true. That's about as childish a statement as I've seen.

Faith is not something that can be willed, he won't ever be able to see things from your perspective and vice versa. Let it go or be laden with this for longer than anyone should be.

 

[chaldoking]

To the person that started this thread...

Don't act like you are some philosophical being that has come up with this assumption using your own pearls of wisdom. You might as well provide us with the relevant reading section from Christopher Hitchens book, where you have actually stolen this idea from.

 

[Scorch]

To the person that started this thread...

Don't act like you are some philosophical being that has come up with this assumption using your own pearls of wisdom. You might as well provide us with the relevant reading section from Christopher Hitchens book, where you have actually stolen this idea from.

To assume that Christopher Hitchens somehow invented this paradox in religion is absurd. The fact that this is nonsense should be evident to any rational person who has a full understanding of the facts. In fact, if you'd really like to get into the nitty gritty, I had thought of such flaws before when debating with theists, however Arthur Schopenhauer mentions this in one of his dialogues, as does Marx, I think, the former having written almost 200 years ago.

That and if I had provided such a link to Hitchens, the people that believe in such nonsense would have, as they typically do, poisoned the well and refused to engage in the logical points being made.

really this thread is about flaws in religion arather than flaws in believing in God.

Not entirely. Belief in God does not have to be intellectually repugnant, that's where more generic forms of deism take place, which at its most basic describes a belief in God. Theism, however, is a term used to describe the belief in God with the further implication that such belief is facilitated through a theistic system of belief. Monotheism and religion, then, are intrinsically linked.

 

[mirakon]

You are right in saying monotheism and religion are intrinsically linked, but nor are they the same. You are targetting at religious moral flaws and technical flaws in the accounts of religion in general rather than the specific belief in one God which is monotheism.

 

[Titburger]

To the person that started this thread...

Don't act like you are some philosophical being that has come up with this assumption using your own pearls of wisdom. You might as well provide us with the relevant reading section from Christopher Hitchens book, where you have actually stolen this idea from.

And how does the fact that Christopher Hitchens raised the same point make the claim any less valid? Contribute or gtfo